Did Wyking really say "they took the shots we wanted them to take"?? UCLA had wide open 3 point jumpers all game. And I mean WIDE open. 17 of 30 from 3 requires lots of open looks. Is our defensive strategy really geared toward allowing wide open 3s? Please tell me that's not the case. Seriously, does Wyking actually think we played good defense tonight?

Did Wyking really say "they took the shots we wanted them to take"?? UCLA had wide open 3 point jumpers all game. And I mean WIDE open. 17 of 30 from 3 requires lots of open looks. Is our defensive strategy really geared toward allowing wide open 3s? Please tell me that's not the case. Seriously, does Wyking actually think we played good defense tonight?

Yes, that statement really stood out to me as puzzling.

UCLA could get wide open, catch-and-shoot, in-rhythm, comfort-zone 3 pointers almost any time they wanted to. How could those be the shots we wanted them to take?

I mean sure, they could have missed them. Just like sure, you could stay on a 16 against a 10 in blackjack and maybe have it work out.

Edited to add: on a completely different but also frustrating note, I think we missed 4 front-ends of 1-and-1s today. Which is hard to do considering the maximum number of 1-and-1s a team can possibly have in the whole game is 6 (and often there are fewer if one of team fouls 7 through 9 in a half are shooting or offensive). Not that it would have made much of a difference if we had made them...

Did Wyking really say "they took the shots we wanted them to take"?? UCLA had wide open 3 point jumpers all game. And I mean WIDE open. 17 of 30 from 3 requires lots of open looks. Is our defensive strategy really geared toward allowing wide open 3s? Please tell me that's not the case. Seriously, does Wyking actually think we played good defense tonight?

Cal basketball, taking defense to a whole new level - signed Sonny Dykes.

our press was going to allow their bigs to have open looks. Usually, either blogs turn down those shots, or they usually do not convert them. so, we played thge odds. sometimes, the odds turn against you. ( Blogs should read Bigs) Next year, out talent will match up much better. More depth, more maturity and maybe even a guy named Brown.

Welsh was automatic from 15 last year so we knew he can shoot, and I knew he started shooting 3s this year, but he was on fire from deep. Really put us in a hole, and the 3 point barrage kept ucla comfortably ahead overtime it felt like Cal was making some noise.

When Lee is playing, we usually played a 3-2 zone defense, but we mixed it up with different zones when King was in.UCLA was defending us mostly with a 3-2 defense.

by the way, neither team used many off ball screens. again, because both teams played zone most of the time.

McNeil penetrated more this game than in the past, and when he did so good things happen. He needs to finish better, but it's a good sign he can get deep into the paint. He also had a pretty bounce pass assist to Lee. Perhaps McNeil's best PG play of the season.

Another showcase for Sueing. He has a real good hesitation move, and can score in creative ways around the hoops using jelly shots. Extremely savvy and effective around the basket. He shot from deep really well today, which is a little surprising given his shooting form.

I've said many times, I like Dyson's potential. He might not yet be 100%, but more than that he's a freshmen that is still adjusting to the college level speed, size and athletism. Good news is he passes better than I expected and was able to drive and finish (which is his game). He also has quick hands on defense. He's the kind of athlete we need in conference.

I love having Lee on our team. He had some great blocks, and a ton of rebounds. Still not polished offensively, but he's such an athlete that he gets dunks, ally oops, and put backs. Again, our MVP.

Winston needs to make those easy layups. Maybe thinking he's going to get his shot blocked so not going up strong.

Cal didn't have any turnovers off of ucla's 3/4 press which is progress. They did have two turnovers when Hand jumped the passing lane. Gotta clean that up, especially against UW. Gotta burn their over aggressiveness. Nice to see that our press did result in some turnovers. Some progress.

Pac refs continue to be frustrating. Calling ticky tak fouls that have no impact on the player, yet not calling ucla for when he obviously fouled coleman when he stole the ball and scored. Another play when the refs did call ucla player for a foul, but they didn't count as an and-one. 7 foot Welsh is text book in the paint defensively. He goes straight up and rarely fouls.

We are leaving way to many points on the FT line, especially today missing four 1and1s. We should have had at least 6-8 more points from the FT line, and if we did, we would have been in single digits for a lot of the second half. That changes the dynamics of the game.

I think this game was more that ucla played well, although that's partly due to Cal's continued poor defense. Offensively we had another slow start but ended up with 84 points.

That 5 minute stretch of pressing (led by JHD) where we got it to 11 provided what I think could be our thing in the further. UCLA looked really confused, but we ran out of gas. Will this be sustainable going forward? Right now it seems to hurt more than help.

JHD is perfect for Wyking's style but needs to get bigger and stronger to make an impact on O.

McNeill looks like he can be a 3 Point sharp shooter like Theo. Too bad Theo can't coach him.

Sueing kind of reminds me of SLO Mo Anderson from UCLA who varied his pace to be effective rather than out quick or out athlete everyone.

our press was going to allow their bigs to have open looks. Usually, either blogs turn down those shots, or they usually do not convert them. so, we played thge odds. sometimes, the odds turn against you. ( Blogs should read Bigs) Next year, out talent will match up much better. More depth, more maturity and maybe even a guy named Brown.

That may be true on the offensive side, and certainly more depth is needed for up tempo. But again, I'm not seeing defensive fundamentals, either on an individual basis or with team defense. And a mobile big like Brown doesn't really cure that. We have that in Lee already. I don't see Jones having the coaching chops in this area, but that is okay. Plenty of HC's who are primarily recruiters. Get staff that can teach defense if Jones is to be retained.

So at the next home game, the fans need to boo the Bears and taunt them like it was a road game?

How about this strategy? Let's start the game 20 pts. behind. Then, the opposition will get complacent and our guys will play with more abandon. After getting behind by 20 pts., we played them pretty evenly for the remainder of the game. Or at least, the deficit stayed around the 20 pt. mark.

our press was going to allow their bigs to have open looks. Usually, either blogs turn down those shots, or they usually do not convert them. so, we played thge odds. sometimes, the odds turn against you. ( Blogs should read Bigs) Next year, out talent will match up much better. More depth, more maturity and maybe even a guy named Brown.

That may be true on the offensive side, and certainly more depth is needed for up tempo. But again, I'm not seeing defensive fundamentals, either on an individual basis or with team defense. And a mobile big like Brown doesn't really cure that. We have that in Lee already. I don't see Jones having the coaching chops in this area, but that is okay. Plenty of HC's who are primarily recruiters. Get staff that can teach defense if Jones is to be retained.

There have been several occasions this season where the TV analysts have chosen to take this group to task for their absolute disinterest in playing hard on defense. Dakich did it in Hawaii and Monty and now McLean this weekend. I understand young teams making rotation mistakes etc, but not playing hard is completely inexcusable. Until this team decides it is going to play hard for 40 minutes they will continue to get blown out.

TV analysts generally want to give young players the benefit of the doubt. But it is very clear that effort is missing from the Bears. The first half of these past 2 games were really hard to understand. They have some clear personnel concerns that may be addressed with the next recruiting class and when Austin is eligible to have a real PG. But this year was to be a "culture" creating year. Unfortunately the culture being established is poor effort, poor body language and a disdain for defense generally.

I can accept the losing knowing the personnel on hand if they play hard and make strides. Unfortunately I see an ongoing pattern of disinterest in defense and a lack of effort generally. They had a few moments yesterday and Thursday where they played hard, but only in small windows of time and well after the game had been decided.

They gave up over 50pts in each half yesterday. 107 for the game. Really? While some of that is strategy some of that is just plain lack of effort.

our press was going to allow their bigs to have open looks. Usually, either blogs turn down those shots, or they usually do not convert them. so, we played thge odds. sometimes, the odds turn against you. ( Blogs should read Bigs) Next year, out talent will match up much better. More depth, more maturity and maybe even a guy named Brown.

That may be true on the offensive side, and certainly more depth is needed for up tempo. But again, I'm not seeing defensive fundamentals, either on an individual basis or with team defense. And a mobile big like Brown doesn't really cure that. We have that in Lee already. I don't see Jones having the coaching chops in this area, but that is okay. Plenty of HC's who are primarily recruiters. Get staff that can teach defense if Jones is to be retained.

agree our defense is a problem, but it's also true it's tough with so many freshmen. Jabari Bird is a good example... athletic, talent, size ... but played terrible defense as a freshmen.

our press was going to allow their bigs to have open looks. Usually, either blogs turn down those shots, or they usually do not convert them. so, we played thge odds. sometimes, the odds turn against you. ( Blogs should read Bigs) Next year, out talent will match up much better. More depth, more maturity and maybe even a guy named Brown.

That may be true on the offensive side, and certainly more depth is needed for up tempo. But again, I'm not seeing defensive fundamentals, either on an individual basis or with team defense. And a mobile big like Brown doesn't really cure that. We have that in Lee already. I don't see Jones having the coaching chops in this area, but that is okay. Plenty of HC's who are primarily recruiters. Get staff that can teach defense if Jones is to be retained.

agree our defense is a problem, but it's also true it's tough with so many freshmen. Jabari Bird is a good example... athletic, talent, size ... but played terrible defense as a freshmen.

Agree that youth and defense often don't mix well. But Coleman is a junior and he's the worst defender on the team. That one is a little harder to figure out.

I also found the "they took the shots we wanted them to take" statement troubling. Wyking's point was that, in general, you want your opponent's big men shooting 3s. But UCLA's big men can shoot the lights out. Giving them wide open looks was not a good strategy. Especially when they proved they can hit them early.

I also found the "they took the shots we wanted them to take" statement troubling. Wyking's point was that, in general, you want your opponent's big men shooting 3s. But UCLA's big men can shoot the lights out. Giving them wide open looks was not a good strategy. Especially when they proved they can hit them early.

What is even more troubling is that this shows basically zero skill in game preparation and planning. Based on watching UCLA last year on tv I could have told Wyqueen Jones that ucla's bigs can shoot, Welsh in particular. And I didn't have to watch hours of film to know that.

I also found the "they took the shots we wanted them to take" statement troubling. Wyking's point was that, in general, you want your opponent's big men shooting 3s. But UCLA's big men can shoot the lights out. Giving them wide open looks was not a good strategy. Especially when they proved they can hit them early.

What is even more troubling is that this shows basically zero skill in game preparation and planning. Based on watching UCLA last year on tv I could have told Wyqueen Jones that ucla's bigs can shoot, Welsh in particular. And I didn't have to watch hours of film to know that.

Do you actually believe making fun of someone's name--and managing to do so in a sexist manner to boot qualifies as intelligent commentary?

I also found the "they took the shots we wanted them to take" statement troubling. Wyking's point was that, in general, you want your opponent's big men shooting 3s. But UCLA's big men can shoot the lights out. Giving them wide open looks was not a good strategy. Especially when they proved they can hit them early.

What is even more troubling is that this shows basically zero skill in game preparation and planning. Based on watching UCLA last year on tv I could have told Wyqueen Jones that ucla's bigs can shoot, Welsh in particular. And I didn't have to watch hours of film to know that.

Don't know what to say to this other than Welsh attempted only one three-pointer all of last year, and Olesinski wasn't on the team. Going into the Cal game this year, they were shooting a combined 32% from behind the arc.

I also found the "they took the shots we wanted them to take" statement troubling. Wyking's point was that, in general, you want your opponent's big men shooting 3s. But UCLA's big men can shoot the lights out. Giving them wide open looks was not a good strategy. Especially when they proved they can hit them early.

This was my take. If your strategy is let their skilled shooters who are bigs take shots, well then that doesn't seem like much of a strategy.

our press was going to allow their bigs to have open looks. Usually, either blogs turn down those shots, or they usually do not convert them. so, we played thge odds. sometimes, the odds turn against you. ( Blogs should read Bigs) Next year, out talent will match up much better. More depth, more maturity and maybe even a guy named Brown.

That may be true on the offensive side, and certainly more depth is needed for up tempo. But again, I'm not seeing defensive fundamentals, either on an individual basis or with team defense. And a mobile big like Brown doesn't really cure that. We have that in Lee already. I don't see Jones having the coaching chops in this area, but that is okay. Plenty of HC's who are primarily recruiters. Get staff that can teach defense if Jones is to be retained.

agree our defense is a problem, but it's also true it's tough with so many freshmen. Jabari Bird is a good example... athletic, talent, size ... but played terrible defense as a freshmen.

Agreed, and we will be playing defense with inexperienced (mostly frosh) bigs next year. Thus, the need for more focus this year.

I also found the "they took the shots we wanted them to take" statement troubling. Wyking's point was that, in general, you want your opponent's big men shooting 3s. But UCLA's big men can shoot the lights out. Giving them wide open looks was not a good strategy. Especially when they proved they can hit them early.

What is even more troubling is that this shows basically zero skill in game preparation and planning. Based on watching UCLA last year on tv I could have told Wyqueen Jones that ucla's bigs can shoot, Welsh in particular. And I didn't have to watch hours of film to know that.

Don't know what to say to this other than Welsh attempted only one three-pointer all of last year, and Olesinski wasn't on the team. Going into the Cal game this year, they were shooting a combined 32% from behind the arc.

Good point and I'm actually surprised by that stat! That said, his mid range game last year was great so I knew he was a good shooter. Good enough that we don't just keep letting him shoot open threes.

I also found the "they took the shots we wanted them to take" statement troubling. Wyking's point was that, in general, you want your opponent's big men shooting 3s. But UCLA's big men can shoot the lights out. Giving them wide open looks was not a good strategy. Especially when they proved they can hit them early.

What is even more troubling is that this shows basically zero skill in game preparation and planning. Based on watching UCLA last year on tv I could have told Wyqueen Jones that ucla's bigs can shoot, Welsh in particular. And I didn't have to watch hours of film to know that.

Don't know what to say to this other than Welsh attempted only one three-pointer all of last year, and Olesinski wasn't on the team. Going into the Cal game this year, they were shooting a combined 32% from behind the arc.

True enough that their stats suggest medicore 3 pt shooting ability. Doubtful though other teams left them as wide open as Cal did all game long. Once they showed an ability to make them when open, you would think they would consider changing the approach. But alas that would be no.

I also found the "they took the shots we wanted them to take" statement troubling. Wyking's point was that, in general, you want your opponent's big men shooting 3s. But UCLA's big men can shoot the lights out. Giving them wide open looks was not a good strategy. Especially when they proved they can hit them early.

What is even more troubling is that this shows basically zero skill in game preparation and planning. Based on watching UCLA last year on tv I could have told Wyqueen Jones that ucla's bigs can shoot, Welsh in particular. And I didn't have to watch hours of film to know that.

Don't know what to say to this other than Welsh attempted only one three-pointer all of last year, and Olesinski wasn't on the team. Going into the Cal game this year, they were shooting a combined 32% from behind the arc.

True enough that their stats suggest medicore 3 pt shooting ability. Doubtful though other teams left them as wide open as Cal did all game long. Once they showed an ability to make them when open, you would think they would consider changing the approach. But alas that would be no.

I wonder how we would shoot the 3 ball if left wide open when we don't shoot it well now. My guess is not as good as Welsh and Olesinski---somehow strange things happen to the greatness of players when they play Cal.

Jones is a bit stuck between trying to install his system for the long haul, and what might make us marginally more competitive in the short-term. We looked better in the press on Saturday, which allowed us to make a run and get back in the game, but when we gave up open looks in it, they went to Welsh and Olesinski, who converted. Would we be better off playing exclusively man? Maybe, although I don't know that we have anyone who can defend the other team's point guard consistently at the point of attack, so that just sets up a different set of problems.

I felt slightly better after Saturday than after Thursday, where I felt U$C hit us in the mouth early, and we just folded. Against the Ruins, we got up and tried to punch back. Still going to be a long season due to our lack of consistent shooting, or a point guard.

Jones is a bit stuck between trying to install his system for the long haul, and what might make us marginally more competitive in the short-term. We looked better in the press on Saturday, which allowed us to make a run and get back in the game, but when we gave up open looks in it, they went to Welsh and Olesinski, who converted. Would we be better off playing exclusively man? Maybe, although I don't know that we have anyone who can defend the other team's point guard consistently at the point of attack, so that just sets up a different set of problems.

I felt slightly better after Saturday than after Thursday, where I felt U$C hit us in the mouth early, and we just folded. Against the Ruins, we got up and tried to punch back. Still going to be a long season due to our lack of consistent shooting, or a point guard.

Good analysis. SFCity has pointed out that with a young team such as this, you need to simplify defense until they get one defense (he prefers man) down. At the same time, being able to switch from man to zone or zone to man seems important. We beat Stanfurd in large part because of the switch to man defense. Against UCLA, the situation was crying for that--even if only for a few minutes to force them out of the rhythm on their 3's. I also agree with SFCity that the lack of fundamentals is dooming any defense we try.

Jones is a bit stuck between trying to install his system for the long haul, and what might make us marginally more competitive in the short-term. We looked better in the press on Saturday, which allowed us to make a run and get back in the game, but when we gave up open looks in it, they went to Welsh and Olesinski, who converted. Would we be better off playing exclusively man? Maybe, although I don't know that we have anyone who can defend the other team's point guard consistently at the point of attack, so that just sets up a different set of problems.

I felt slightly better after Saturday than after Thursday, where I felt U$C hit us in the mouth early, and we just folded. Against the Ruins, we got up and tried to punch back. Still going to be a long season due to our lack of consistent shooting, or a point guard.

Good analysis. SFCity has pointed out that with a young team such as this, you need to simplify defense until they get one defense (he prefers man) down. At the same time, being able to switch from man to zone or zone to man seems important. We beat Stanfurd in large part because of the switch to man defense. Against UCLA, the situation was crying for that--even if only for a few minutes to force them out of the rhythm on their 3's. I also agree with SFCity that the lack of fundamentals is dooming any defense we try.

As far as I know, the majority of good coaches start out with a tough, fundamentally-sound man-to-man defense, then add from there.

The fan base tends to drool when a coach comes in and says he's going to run and press, but it's not always the winning option. Cal Basketball 2017-18 kinda comes to mind as the classic example.

IMO, a zone defense usually works better as a change of pace. There's a misconception that zone is "easier" to play, but to do it well is trickier than it looks. Again, look at this year's team.

Maybe this season should've been spent teaching the younger players man-to-man fundamentals. I wonder what Coach is thinking about doing, going into the next ten months? Does he know what he doesn't know? Who does he turn to for advice?